To Shunydragon-Christianity and Polytheism

[shunyadragon]

Not sure what you mean about neglecting the universal nature of the Creator God??

Neglecting is probably the wrong word, but holding to one ancient cultural view of God, and at times a number of conflicting and diverse beliefs within one religion like Christianity. A universal approach to God would reflect the hole history of humanity, and our physical existence, which is neglected from the perspective of any one religion, church or division there of.

[thormas]

Neglecting is probably the wrong word, but holding to one ancient cultural view of God, and at times a number of conflicting and diverse beliefs within one religion like Christianity. A universal approach to God would reflect the hole history of humanity, and our physical existence, which is neglected from the perspective of any one religion, church or division there of.

Got the first part and I agree.

I do know that many of the, for instance, theistic religions, share a great deal about God but is there a universal approach to God that you have in mind?

[shunyadragon]

Got the first part and I agree.

I do know that many of the, for instance, theistic religions, share a great deal about God but is there a universal approach to God that you have in mind?

I consider the use of Theistic to be human construct. Religions like Hinduism and Zoroastrian, and Native American to be variations of Theistic. The Confucian, Buddhist, and Taoist religions are basically Deist where the Source is unknowable and undefinable from the human perspective.

The universal would be God's perspective, and necessarily any one of the above belief systems limited by their cultural and time frame perspective of belief. Also the view of the Creator of all including all humanity, and the promise to Abraham to never leave humanity [All of humanity]. Name resembles A - Brahman.

[thormas]

Again, I agree: all religions and philosophies are human constructs. However, I do believe God IS, that we discern something of the Divine in everyday life and religions are simply our 'insights' into the Divine.

We'll never have God's perspective however I do think that religions can move away from their cultural perspective and time frame and become universal - if they actually believe what they profess about God and free themselves from a literal dependence on their holy books.

[shunyadragon]

Again, I agree: all religions and philosophies are human constructs. However, I do believe God IS, that we discern something of the Divine in everyday life and religions are simply our 'insights' into the Divine.

We agree to a certain extent, but the acknowledgement that we may discern something of the Divine remains singular of of one's own beliefs. We expound on a broader sense of the universal in a discussion philosophically and theologically, but in the Sunday school in the basement the Bible is taught as is what the church believes.

We'll never have God's perspective

This should be a given, but this does not reflect the reality of those who believe their church or religion has God's perspective, or the closest possible 'God's perspective' to a large degree.

. . . however I do think that religions can move away from their cultural perspective and time frame and become universal - if they actually believe what they profess about God and free themselves from a literal dependence on their holy books.

I consider this statement an idealistic perspective of the potential of individual churches and religions that in their nature perpetuate what they believe. Yes, there are reform movements within churches and often new churches form, but the scripture taught in the basement calls people home more often than not.

I do believe that humanity spiritually evolves in the spirit of Revelation as well as physically over the human history of millions of years.

[thormas]

I agree: I have often found theologians in a classroom or in a book to be have a 'broader sense' of the God for all than a preacher or a Sunday school teacher.

Agree on God's perspective.

And I am an idealist :+}

We'll have to discuss Revelation some time.

[Tassman]

I found it relatively easy to explain the HOW of the Eucharist (i.e. the real presence) by moving from transubstantiation to transignification. Part of the explanation turns on the definition of presence wherein proximity is a lower form of presence.

And I presented Gregory Baum's take on Trinity in another section, Unorthodox Theology 201.

Also, Spong's idea of God as a verb (as opposed to a known) is useful in presenting a better take on incarnation.

Yet again, the very need to have to explain doctrines such as the Trinity or the presence of Christ in the Communion is testament to the fact that they are not logical concepts in and of themselves. The most common understanding among ‘believers’ I know is that they are divine mysteries to be accepted as revealed truth by faith alone.

[thormas]

Yet again, the very need to have to explain doctrines such as the Trinity or the presence of Christ in the Communion is testament to the fact that they are not logical concepts in and of themselves. The most common understanding among ‘believers’ I know is that they are divine mysteries to be accepted as revealed truth by faith alone.

I agree they involve myth and symbol but just as, in the past, earlier Christians tried to 'explain' each in the philosophical language of their day and since that language is no longer ours, and since each of these doctrines are sources of confusion and even disillusionment - there is a need to re-present each in a language of our day so they 'speak' to modern people.

On one hand they are not logical but if they are completely illogical, at odds with our understanding of the world and simply sources of confusion - they become worthless to people. A simple explanation can make each 'come alive' and allows the symbol to resonate once again. I know because when I first heard better explanations, my response was "Yes, that makes sense" and when I taught others, the response was "Why didn't anybody ever tell us that before."

So, bottom line, why not, it's worth the effort.

[shunyadragon]

I agree: I have often found theologians in a classroom or in a book to be have a 'broader sense' of the God for all than a preacher or a Sunday school teacher.

Agree on God's perspective.

And I am an idealist :+}

We'll have to discuss Revelation some time.

Interesting subject, it does relate to the belief in the Trinity. From my perspective Creation and Revelation is one process of the evolution of our physical and spiritual existence. Revelation is universal and a reflection of the attributes of God.

[thormas]

Interesting subject, it does relate to the belief in the Trinity. From my perspective Creation and Revelation is one process of the evolution of our physical and spiritual existence. Revelation is universal and a reflection of the attributes of God.

I understand revelation is not information. Rather, revelation is the self-revealing or the self-giving of God to humanity. Therefore I agree that creation and this timeless giving of Self by God is one process that empowers creation to achieve its fulfillment .......in and with Him.

I get the use of the word evolution but I don't use it when discussing the humanization of man (and the fulfillment of creation) - since it suggests a 'natural' movement. Rather I believe that without God there would be no humanization and no fulfillment. Or, put another way, man cannot do it on his own.

[shunyadragon]

I understand revelation is not information. Rather, revelation is the self-revealing or the self-giving of God to humanity. Therefore I agree that creation and this timeless giving of Self by God is one process that empowers creation to achieve its fulfillment .......in and with Him.

I get the use of the word evolution but I don't use it when discussing the humanization of man (and the fulfillment of creation) - since it suggests a 'natural' movement. Rather I believe that without God there would be no humanization and no fulfillment. Or, put another way, man cannot do it on his own.

What science see is a 'natural' constantly changing evolution of not only humanity and life, but our physical existence including planets stars galaxies, and likely universes. I do not believe in a conflict between what science sees and Creation. I believe it is more than obvious that humanity spiritually evolves over time also. I believe it is a harmonious dynamic cyclic process of Creation and Revelation. .

[thormas]

What science see is a 'natural' constantly changing evolution of not only humanity and life, but our physical existence including planets stars galaxies, and likely universes. I do not believe in a conflict between what science sees and Creation. I believe it is more than obvious that humanity spiritually evolves over time also. I believe it is a harmonious dynamic cyclic process of Creation and Revelation. .

My simple point is that if such evolution were natural, there would be no need for God. Rather, 'evolution' or the humanization of man/woman is only accomplished in response to God.

However I have no issue with the scientific concept of evolution.

I would say that man has not really spiritually evolved very much since his dawn. Any truly 'spiritual evolution' of individuals is 'in relation to God.'

When time permits you'll have to explain your last sentence for me.

[Tassman]

I agree they involve myth and symbol but just as, in the past, earlier Christians tried to 'explain' each in the philosophical language of their day and since that language is no longer ours, and since each of these doctrines are sources of confusion and even disillusionment - there is a need to re-present each in a language of our day so they 'speak' to modern people.

There is a need to "re-present" core Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and Hypostatic Union etc. "in a language of our day so they 'speak' to modern people" ONLY if they are true. But there is no good reason to believe they are true other than the need for ‘believers’ to rationalize preexisting essential doctrinal beliefs. Namely, the requirement to justify the man Jesus as God whilst, at the same time, preserving the notion of monotheism.

[thormas]

There is a need to "re-present" core Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and Hypostatic Union etc. "in a language of our day so they 'speak' to modern people" ONLY if they are true. But there is no good reason to believe they are true other than the need for ‘believers’ to rationalize preexisting essential doctrinal beliefs. Namely, the requirement to justify the man Jesus as God whilst, at the same time, preserving the notion of monotheism.

Yet who can know if these, if any religious 'insights' or the insight of the atheist or the agnostic are true? It is - as it always has (or should have been) a question of belief. And then explaining that belief if one sees it as valuable.

I can get my head around the idea of the 'movements' of the one God in creation. I can also get my head around the idea of humanity embodying (i.e. incarnating or making flesh) Divinity ........which is actually an everyday act.

I have no need to justify and I have no problem rejecting things which are nonsensical: satan, hell, atonement, original sin, virgin conception and on and on.

[shunyadragon]

My simple point is that if such evolution were natural, there would be no need for God.

This would be a Metaphysical Naturalist assumption, and interpretation of what is 'natural.' The reality is science by definition deals with Natural Laws and natural processes neutral to the whether God exists or not. Many Theists may be uncomfortable with this neutrality, and from the extreme end accuse science of being atheist.

Rather, 'evolution' or the humanization of man/woman is only accomplished in response to God.

However I have no issue with the scientific concept of evolution.

A bit of a contradiction here. The way you use 'humanization' is Metaphysical assumption.

I would say that man has not really spiritually evolved very much since his dawn. Any truly 'spiritual evolution' of individuals is 'in relation to God.'

When time permits you'll have to explain your last sentence for me.

Spiritual evolution is both the 'individual' and the collective evolution is 'our relationship to God.'. The Bible and other scriptures of the world definitely show a collective evolution of our relationship to God as humanity as whole in our knowledge of the attributes of God. This reflects a more universal perspective Science it self reflects the evolution of knowledge of humanity, which cannot be distinctly separated from our spiritual evolution.